User:Fys/talkarchive1

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:

• You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• Remember to use the show preview button before you save a page.
• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 12:41, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

e e cummings

Yes, sorry, Dbiv, I am rather zealous on lower-casing unecessary caps. It's a subeditor's thing, I fear. Liked yr piece on Pride's Purge. Cunningham

Tony Blair

Hi Dbiv,

It's pretty clear that you know more on the subject than I do but I do feel that simply to say that "He used the term "New Labour" to distinguish the party under his leadership from what had gone before." is a bit too vague. I'm not going to make any more changes to the Tony Blair entry but I do feel that this sentence needs to reflect the reason Blair felt he had to distinguish from what had gone before and what it was he felt he had to distinguish 'new' Labour from.

Thanks, --Lospalmas7 17:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed it is a bit vague but that is because it was deliberately kept so. The phrase 'new Labour' was unveiled at the 1994 Labour conference, without defining what exactly 'old Labour' was. It therefore helped Blair because anyone opposing him within the party could define themselves as 'old Labour', thereby condemning themselves as reactionary. Dbiv 18:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan

Hi Dbiv,

Thanks for your contribution to the Andrew Gilligan article. I wrote most of the original text. I thought your changes improved the article overall. However, I don't think the original was strongly biased in favour of Gilligan, and maybe I'm not best placed to judge, but I thought your edits to the penultimate paragraph may have moved it a little too far in the opposite direction:

• I was motivated to contribute by the fact that I knew Andrew Gilligan well when we were at Cambridge in the early 90s. He was very involved in the Labour Party then. I also remember listening to the 29th May report on the Today programme and I watched him giving evidence at the Hutton Inquiry last August.Dbiv

• • It's great to have a contribution from someone who actually knows the principle. Be careful what you say, though. BTW If you have a picture of Gilligan, it would be good to put it on this page. I am not a member of any political party or any kind of activist and I have no axe to grind. I remember the Today story too - the implications didn't go unnoticed to me (though I think I missed the 6.07 report)! I followed the Hutton Inquiry pretty closely, having set up the www.hutton.softblade.com site (comment free!), so I have read pretty much all the evidence (and remember some of it). I am trying to resist getting sucked in to the argument below, as wikipedia can get bogged down if people cling too tight to their own version of the facts (see my talk page for examples!). However, it might be possible to set up a forum on the softblade website to thrash these issues out in more detail - what do you think? Washington Irving | Talk 19:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Despite this error and the overstatement in the first report, Gilligan had uncovered a potentially important news story, originating from a credible source. However his story suffered from fundamental weaknesses which were demonstrated during the inquiry. While Alastair Campbell had made comments on the dossier, the Joint Intelligence Committee had taken all the decisions on its content. The Defence Intelligence Staff had raised doubts about the 45 minute claim, but they had been dismissed by the Secret Intelligence Service and had not reached 10 Downing Street."

This seems to accept Number 10's arguments rather too uncritically (in my view - this evidence was not uncontested at the Hutton Inquiry).

• The problem I had with this paragraph was that it seemed to say that Gilligan's story was essentially true. It was not true as reported and I wanted to deconstruct it to show, in hindsight, where it was wrong. Dbiv

1. I think the grave implications of the original story (deleted from my version) are accepted by all (TB said he would have had to resign if they had been true).

• It was indeed uncontested that the original story had 'grave implications', but the fact that this was uncontested means it's not necessary to mention it here. The significance of the fact of the story having grave implications is that these were missed when the story was first mooted: which means a) that Gilligan ought to have checked the story more thoroughly; b) his editors ought to have examined the story and checked his notes .Dbiv

1. Gilligan's story was not that No 10 had manipulated the dossier, but that a competent source had told him that this was the case (this seems to be corroborated by Watts' notes, in which Kelly mentions Campbell in a similar conversation).

• That's a journalistic sleight-of-hand. If a journalist reports what a source has told them, then they must be endorsing this view as to some extent their own. After all a journalist would hardly report it if they believed it was rubbish. The initial story did not express any doubt and Gilligan has never said that he believes Kelly got it wrong. And of course whatever he said, Kelly could not have known directly anything that Alastair Campbell had done. Dbiv

1. Also it is clear from evidence to the Hutton Inquiry that Number 10 (AC) did influence the wording of the report, and the fact that the chairman of the JIC signed it off does not invalidate what Gilligan said.

• The only representation made by Alastair Campbell on the 45 minute claim was to say that the wording in the text was different to that in the summary. He did not suggest which should be changed. Dbiv

1. How Kelly knew this (or whether it was just a guess) was never really established as far as I can tell. For instance, he may have had contact with members of the JIC or other insiders.

• My view is that Kelly was talking inside the MoD and receiving passed-down secondhand gossip about the struggles the DIS were having with SIS. We know others in his section shared the same view and the secretive nature of intelligence means that a siege mentality developed with the other agencies. This led to Kelly exaggerating the depth of their doubts, which Gilligan then further exaggerated. Dbiv

1. It's not clear from my reading of the evidence that the concerns within DIS were dismissed by the SIS before reaching Number 10. My understanding is that they were dismissed by the Chief of Defence Intelligence, who was a member of JIC (i.e., they did reach number 10). Perhaps you were using Number 10 in the sense of Alastair Campbell in which case I agree that you are probably right. This is not established fact though: people within the JIC knew about the concerns, and whether they conveyed them to anyone outside the JIC is not certain (we only have their word for it). AC was chairing meetings of a sort of JIC-lite at this stage.

• Evidence at the Hutton Inquiry does establish that the DIS concerns were dismissed by a talk between Tony Cragg (Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence) and the SIS. Cragg had a seat on the JIC but neither he nor anyone else raised concerns about the 45 minute claim, according to Sir Richard Dearlove (15th September, pages 91-2). The point about Number 10 is that Gilligan's key mistake was to include the word 'government' in his broadcast. This implies the political leadership and not the civil service. The 45-minute claim was put in by civil servants, objected to by civil servants, had objections overruled by civil servants, and was finally agreed by civil servants. Gilligan wanted to make it a scandal about the Blair government but they had no involvement. Dbiv

I have no great axe to grind in this, and my original wording was quite critical of Gilligan, especially for naming Kelly as Watt's source and stating that the government "probably knew" the 45 minute claim to be false. Also another editor has contributed further critical information about Gilligan's reports in Baghdad.

• In my view too much is made about the 6:07 broadcast which Gilligan admitted to having misworded. The 7:32 broadcast did not make the direct allegation that the Government knew the claim to be wrong but it still had a strong implication of dishonesty ("the government knew it was questionable" and earlier [the agencies] "thought the informant concerned had got it wrong"). Dbiv

I still think however that this criticism should be balanced by an admission that Gilligan had reported a serious allegation with grave implications, one which has been subsequently corroborated in many respects. I wonder if you would be prepared to alter the paragraph to strike a note somewhere in between the original version and the current one. Alternatively, maybe you can persuade me that the new version is more accurate/balanced.

• I think a paragraph might be put in that reports many still believe Gilligan's story was true, and a mention might be made of Blair's remarks somewhere. Dbiv

Best wishes, and thanks again for your contribution.

Washington Irving | Talk 17:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hallo again. Thanks for your detailed response. It's clear that while we disagree about interpretation, there is little disagreement about the facts. I should probably give an equally detailed rebuttal (I don't agree with your reading of the evidence to the Hutton Inquiry), but so far as the article is concerned, the current version needs only minor changes along the lines you suggest - getting into a big argument wouldn't help with this.

We all have our points of view. These are quite clear in the above exchange. In essence, I feel you have been 100% effective in correcting any POV I may have inadvertently left in the article, and only added the equivalent of 10% of your own. This final 10% shouldn't be to hard to fix. Maybe we can argue about interpretation of the Hutton evidence another time.

Thanks for your thoughtful and very positive contributions to British political topics. I've looked at your history and like the way you're going about your work. Best wishes, Washington Irving | Talk 19:11, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Nice job on updating Bobby Sands, definately good to have more than just life in the Maze. Only trouble is, there is now an argument to move the page to 'Robert George Sands' with 'Bobby Sands' as a redirect.

• Don't think so - there are a lot of biographies which are indexed by usual name but start with full name.Dbiv

Also I think there is a Wiki convention for biographies to start Name (date-of-birth - date-of-death) possibly to support automatic parsing of pages, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies).

• So do I, but I've changed it in accordance with the style guide.Dbiv

Although I must admit I personally prefer to have the additional information with place-of-birth etc. — Solipsist 19:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--- Why do you object to the Dan Waniek article? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Leader of the House of Lords

Re the leader of the house of lords, why do you say that Haldane was leader in 1924? He was Lord Chancellor, and generally the Lord Chancellor cannot also be leader of the lords. john 21:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That makes sense. Do you know if the 1931-1941 stuff is all correct? john 21:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chiltern/northsteadboxes

Look at list at the bottom of Winston Churchill then tell me that. ;) Morwen 16:51, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Powers of NI Assembly

David,

Glad to see you on Wikipedia. I consider myself one of your biggest fans. :)

I was wondering if you could chime in at the Northern Ireland Assembly article on the powers the body has compared to Cardiff Bay and Holyrood?

--iHoshie 23:43, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:John Major regarding "The Bastards" Mintguy (T) 22:32, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Your on Westminster Council, so maybe you can tell us: Why is there a gimp on the Council's website? It links here. 62.7.128.140 13:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The mind of Robert Davis is a dangerous place for outsiders. Dbiv 13:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gnomes of Zurich

Thanks for correcting date and providing the full quote. Much better!

--Cje 13:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Secretaries of State

Where did you get the info for the Principal Secretaries of State, because a. perhaps it has more lists that may be useful (i.e. Master of the Horse), and b. because certain people seem to not have existed (a google search for Francis Accursii, for example, results in nothing). ugen64 22:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

The source was Haydn's Book of Dignities (1894 ed. by Horace Ockerby, pages 221-3). Not awfully surprising that nothing has been written on the internet about someone who had an obscure post in the 13th century. Records are understandably somewhat scarce for this point. Dbiv 12:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Navboxes on Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds

Concur. Have added a note to the talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia BTW! --Keith Edkins 06:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MEPs

Do you happen to have a source of Christian names for MEPs elected in 1979? There are nine on MEPs for the UK 1979 - 1984 I haven't been able to track down. Cambridge library only holds the Times Guide to the European Parliament back to 1984 and the Guardian and Telegraph only published initials (The Times was on strike). If anybody would know, it could be you! --Keith Edkins 06:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for the names, the list is complete now. I presume you're sure it's Nicholas Balfour - I had him down as Neil, but I can't now remember where I got that from. I believe Allan Rogers has two 'L's.

Official invitation

Hi!

This is a message to let you know that there is now a UK-specific Wikipedia community page at Wikipedia:UK wikipedians' notice board. It would be great if you could come and get involved! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ken Clarke and Bilderberg

Hi - I see you removed as a "questionable claim" Ken Clarke's membership of the Bilderberg Group. I've now presented some evidence for it on the talk page. Evercat 12:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Labour peers

Further to your comments on User:Timrollpickering's talk page, I've been looking into the same for a little while. I haven't had much result, but I thought I'd summarise what I've learnt about Labour peers up to 1929.

There are several references to Francis Russell being the first Labour peer, one of which implies that he joined before WWI (though only because it mentions him joining Labour before it discusses his support of Bertrand Russell's conscientious objection during WWI). There are also claims made for Sidney Olivier and David Quibell, but I'm inclined to discount these. There's one reference to De la Warr being first peer to take his seat as a supporter of the Labour party, but a letter he wrote to MacDonald in 1923 might suggest otherwise: I have not lost my interest in politics. At present I can hardly call myself a whole-hearted supporter of any party, but my sympathies are all with yours [...] I fully realize however that the Labour Party will need support in the next Parliament, and I shall gladly help, by constant attendance and vote whenever possible.

According to a Daily Mail article from 1925, there were seven Labour peers at that point: Russell, De la Warr, Haldane, Gorell, Parmoor, and two peers created in 1924, Olivier and Thomson. Olivier and Russell were long-standing Fabians, and Thomson had joined the party in 1919, but all the others seem to join at the formation of the first Labour government. Beatrice Webb, in her diary entries from that time, describes both Haldane and Parmoor as "outsiders" (given that Haldane was a good friend of the Webbs, and Parmoor her brother-in-law, I'm sure she must mean party affiliation). Flicking through indexes, neither Russell nor De la Warr are mentioned in any of my books (so, if either was the first Labour peer, it apparently wasn't that notable). Russell wrote an autobiography in the early 1920s (My Life and Adventures), which might be some help if you can track down a copy. There was also an article by Martin Pugh in the February 1998 English Historical Review, which you might find interesting: "Class traitors: Conservative recruits to Labour, 1900-30". That gives 1923/4 as the time Haldane, De la Warr and Parmoor joined. It used to be on-line at [1], but seems to have disappeared. -- Gregg 04:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's online at this website but you'll need access to get to it. (Universities can and with an ATHENS password I'm able to access it myself. The article (and about 110 years of the Journal) appears to have been scanned in page by page so even copy & paste quotations are a bit tricky. Timrollpickering 22:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David Kelly 'Suicide'

Hi, see my comments to the David Kelly discussion page.--Mervynl 17:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tony Blair

While I am marginally alarmed that you have chosen to euphemise what about 99.9% of the British population whose brains have not been surgically exorcised by the tabloid media and the Blair spin machine recognise as self-evident, I am unsuprised that some Blair apologist would chime in. I have other fish to fry, but just so you are under no illusions, the Hutton Inquiry was a whitewash of the first water; conducted by a freemason establishment lickspittle with a long and undistinguished history of doing what he is told. Let me as a simple measure of this suggest you Google for the words Hutton and whitewash... Sjc 04:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-Christian/Trinitarian Prime Ministers

Your input at Talk:Neville Chamberlain would be most useful. Timrollpickering 20:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

• Image:Ikehayward.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the imagesand I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 23:35, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Kents Hill School

Hello Dbiv. The article on Kents Hill School has been refactored and expanded, with additional work underway. I think that the fact it is one of the oldest co-ed schools in the nation sets a good case for notability. In any case, I was hoping you would revisit the issue and reconsider your vote. Thank you -- [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 19:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Founded 1824? It's a mere stripling. The school I went to was founded in 1502, and then I went to a university college founded in 1473. Dbiv 19:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations. As it stands this school is the longest continously operating co-ed school in the United States, and one of the first 20 schools documented to open their doors to both men and women in the nation. Its clearly noteworthy and distinguishable from other schools and worthy of including on Wikipedia, wouldn't you agree? [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DYK

Well done. 68.81.231.127 12:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

League of Nations is the new Collaboration of the Week. Please join in helping make it a feature article.

David Irving

I'm leaving this note here so as not to take up more space on the nomination page. I feel you're being unnecessary aggressive, even rude, about this, and I don't see why. You wrote: " There is the distinct whiff of POV here, as indeed is throughout the article." I asked you in what way, and GeneralPatton asked you how the sections you quoted differed from the views of mainstream academics, yet you won't answer. Please do explain. Given that this article is about the distortion of history, it has a particular responsibility to be as neutral and factual itself as is possible. So if you feel there's a genuine POV problem, it would be good to know what it is, and how to fix it. Slim 07:53, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hah! I didn't realize you were a Yorkshireman. I wouldn't have argued that I known that.  :-) Thanks for your note, and I apologize for saying you were being rude and aggressive. I do agree with you about the lack of citations. Instead of saying "historians say," the article should say X or Y says. NPOV doesn't mean that articles must reflect all opinions though: only majority and significant minority should be reflected. See Wikipedia:NPOV. An example often given is that Einstein's views on relativity need not be countered by Auntie Gertie's. In the case of Irving, I would say that only academic historians need be mentioned, and not the views of the revisionist lobby, though the academics should be named, as you say; and there may exist somewhere an academic historian who feels that Irving had a point, but I doubt it. If you read Evans' book, the evidence indicating Irving's manipulation of primary source material seems pretty conclusive. And I do agree that featured articles should reflect a higher standard than is found in other articles. Best, Slim 02:08, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

You're welcome. Thanks for seeking the nomination. It should've been made a while ago. 172 03:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dbiv!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Total Disagreement!

I disagree with you. Finis White is a young man that has done more than something significant, in addition to making Eagle. And making Eagle alone is significant You would know that if you have ever been in the scouts. As a veteran leader, I know what I am taking about. I have been involved in scout leading for over a decade! I support this article and will continue to support and edit it. And, for the record, these boys are more grown up than most youths will ever be! --Sistertina 15:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

college quiz

hey i think expanding what info is already there an excellent idea. i did have the intention of making it (after i moved it to its own page) a project page but actually adding some other info would be a great idea only thing is there might be in that case (being an article) what would be condsidered vandalism as people would constatntly be trying to do the quiz. do what you wish and whatever the outcome i'm sure it will great --Larsie 23:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Minnesota "faithless elector"

Dbiv:

Thank you for your very kind words on my talk page. I have also replied on my talk page, but I wanted to be sure that you read this. I apologize if this violates Wikipedia etiquette. (Does it?) — DLJessup 05:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No - actually it's positively encouraged. I've seen some debates that take place with each successive contribution on the opposite users' talk page, like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. Dbiv 11:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Catpiano

Why did you delete the article on Catpiano? I know it seems as a hoax but it's not, atleast it is true that it was an idea to cure insanity since it is mentioned in several german books from the time. Most information also points that it was in fact used in practical application. Use a search on google with these keywords (cat-piano, katzenclavier, insanity) you'll find that my information does not come out of thin air and is not a hoax. My article may be small and does not contain A4's of information but it is a small subject and it isn't much more to write about it and I seen several pages on WP that is equally small or smaller than my catpiano article. And does not conform to any of the WP vandalism criteria. Next time you blame an article of Vandalism please EXPLAIN why and pinpoint your opinion to a WP Vandalism criteria. (unsigned contribution from User:82.182.112.48)

Catpiano

Well the article version that you replyed to on my user talk page was a DRAFT version (correctly warned by user Bart133) Just minutes later after Bart133 had done this I made a NEW version that did not include my sarcastic humour notices (and I originally intended to update that draft version after I collected more information on the subject - just didn't realize you guys were so friggin' fast :-). So the version you deleted/warned was infact a correct article that said everything the current does... regarding Theoretical vs. Practical application of the instrument their is a dispute... so my information was not correct since several sources state that the instrument infact was used in reality (there are several sketchworks in newspapers from the time featuring catpianos maybe sarcastic drawnings regarding the theory but could also be from the fact it was actually used considering the people who play the instrument on these drawings are very detailed and look realistic and does not have a comic or sarcastic look).

Leckhampton

Hello; I was wondering if you would have a second look at the Leckhampton page.. it's changed somewhat since you voted.. and it is in fact noted for it's architecture. cheers, Mlm42 01:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Overweight articles

I have brought the subject of overweight articles to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to try and get some clarity about article splitting. Squiquifox 00:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Places

when im doing articles on villages, is it acceptable to provide an external url that points to a map of the place on Multimap.co.uk, such as

[Pointon Parish]

??

Lincolnshire Poacher

making disabiguation pages

ok, ive started going through all the existing Lincolnshire Villages pages adding a link to Multimap and a link to the location website if ther eis one.

Bicker is a village in lincolnshire, but the links points to a place in USA. There is no page for the lincolnshire village

How do I create a disambiguation page to distinguish between the two? What do you call the page?

Steve

Benjamin Mountfort

I think I have addressed your points. It did say he was an Anglican, however this is now more defined. Link is now to Augustus Pugin (perhaps the Pugin page needs to be moved?) I have listed his major works (this list will grow over time) the colour photos are a problem, as all available are in copyright, and its a bit far to go and take some (for me anyway) I have added links to the list which will provide photographs - hopefully this will suffice. Giano 12:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image

Hello, Do you have any source for the image Image:Charlesbradlaugh.jpg you uploaded? I wanted to upload it at Commons but I'm unsure if it is allowed to do so without a source. Stern 10:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Discussion moved to Image talk:Avalexander.jpg#Copyright.

Oh! Mr. Porter! VFD

Hi there--

Another user and I have done a rewrite of the Oh! Mr Porter! article in the hopes of making it worthy of keeping. I'm wondering if you'd take a look at the new article, and reconsider your vote to delete it . Thanks!

Best wishes, Jacobw 18:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

I can't imagine it being that big of a deal if I am made admin; if I am I will try to do it well but will mostly just keep doing what I'm already doing. I've already spent quite a bit of time undoing vandalism and will do so whether granted admin/sysop status or not. As you may have already noticed, one of my bigger pet peeves (for a "Yank", at least) is learning just how many of my fellows feel that British spelling preferences are somehow wrong, or they have never heard that there may be an alternative orthography. The American system of education seems to have degenerated into the truly abysmal; however they said that in my day and look how I turned out! :o) Regards, Rlquall 01:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for you support in my request for adminship. Your trust in me will not be disappointed. Now, I'm off to put these new powers to good use! -- Scott e^iπ 02:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi David,

I would like to thank you for your vote of support and confidence for my adminship, it has been much appreciated. If you need anything in future that requires my attention, please do not hesitate to contact me. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Henrygb2. It has made my week. If you are the person on news:uk.politics.electoral then I am impressed. --Henrygb 01:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and another

Thank you for supporting my recent RFA; I appreciate your vote and will do my best in the new job. Quite an impressive contributions list on your user page, by the way. Happy editing! Antandrus 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hardworking families

Please reconsider your vote for the article hardworking families; I have expanded it a bit more. Cheers. – Kaihsu 14:16, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2005

The picture I posted is fair use from the Daily Telegraph, it was in their paper,and they do support the usage of pictures as long as citiation is given to the paper. [2]

Cheers, Cmc0

The page you cite doesn't say that you can use their material. It says:

Users are permitted to copy some material for their personal use as private individuals only. Users must not republish any part of the data either on another website, or in any other medium, print, electronic or otherwise, or as part of any commercial service without the prior written permission of Telegraph Group Limited.

I'd call Wikipedia 'another website'. Dbiv 12:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

election Template for MP articles

I have been looking over the articles we have on the MPs in the last Parliament. These articles still describe the person as an MP even though Parliament has been dissolved for the election and there are no MPs @ present. What would you think about a template that makes this fact clear? The Template would be used from now until after the election and placed on WP:TFD after the vote. I am thinking of verbage like this:

This Wikipedia biography about MPs NAME was written while that person was a member of the British House of Commons. As Parliament was dissolved on April 11, 2005, there will be no Members of Parliament until after the general election on May 5.

I feel this would be good to alert newbies to UK Politics to this fact and stop confusion. I was thinking of a location like Template:NoMPge05 or somesuch.

Comments?

Hoshie/Crat 09:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The size of Wales

It looks as though we must have had an edit conflict on this article, and were writing the same basic message to the speedy deleter at the same time. Great minds... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you might consider that Wikipedia is not a repository for this kind of semi-dicdef. This isn't some famous phrase or common saying, its just a size comparison, similar to the ancient "Bigger than a bread box". We don't need trash like this on Wikipedia.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 22:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and great minds think for themselve :) ...--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 22:27, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support on my RfA: the comment is particularly appreciated coming from an editor with your impressive output. I shall attempt to put the shiny new buttons to good use! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oliver Baldwin

It is well-attested that Baldwin was gay, why are you attempting to censor this article? Adam 09:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read my edits. I'm not censoring it. In fact I've added the name of his partner John Boyle. Dbiv 09:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Death of Lib Dem candidate

Hiya, interesting addition. I note on the BBC article, covering it, they call it a by-election. Also, do you think it is in the right article? Maybe it should be in the pre-election events article. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The simple explanation is that the BBC is wrong. No new writ is issued; the election is part of the general election - it just doesn't take place on the same day as the others. Polling postponed by the death of a candidate has happened seven times now since 1918. I think it should be in the article although not necessarily in the lead section. Dbiv 14:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you include a source which uses the correct terminology then? :) Talrias (t | e | c) 14:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Not an online one but F. W. S. Craig wrote in the introductory notes to British Parliamentary Election Results series "It should be noted that postponed polls are not considered by-elections but are part of the General Election, no new writ being issued." (page xvii of 1950-73 and page xvi of 1918-49). Dbiv 14:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - this new change should probably be dealt with tomorrow when there is some more coverage of it. Thanks. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your edit, was doing it from the news articles.

However, in the interests of civility, please don't shout at people, even if we are wrong. :-)

James F. (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)